Court mandates efficient execution of judicial processes under the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing police responsibility and procedural compliance for expeditious trials.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Balram Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application has been filed to direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (J.D.) FTC/Judicial Magistrate, Rampur to conclude the trial of Case No. 50 of 2019 ( Sachin Vs. Inder Singh ), u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1881'), Police Station-Tanda, District-Rampur, within a stipulated period.

3. Though, this Court had disposed of the prayer regarding expeditious disposal of the complaint in question vide order dated 27.11.2024, still this case was kept pending for the reason that this court came across many cases, including the present one, wherein despite the issuance of summons, bailable warrant, non-bailable warrant and other process against the accused, the presence of the accused could not be ensured for the reason that processes were not executed by the police, despite repeated letters of the concerned Magistrate to the SHO as well as Superintendent of Police. Therefore, this court vide order dated 12.11.2024 directed the Director General of Police, U.P., to appear personally before this court.

4. In pursuance of the order dated 12.11.2024, Director General of Police, U.P., appeared before this court on 27.11.2024 and submitted that he has taken several steps to ensure the timely execution of the process of the court, especially in the matters under the Act, 1881. It was also submitted by the Director General of Police, U.P., Sri Prashant Kumar, that there is negligence on the part of same police personnel in the execution of warrants, but there is also negligence on the part of court staff in dispatching or handing over the process of court to the police. This problem will be easily sorted out when the National Service and Tracking of Electronic Processes (in short, 'NSTEP') will start working in criminal court. On being asked that what the problem is in implementing the NSTEP in criminal courts in U.P., then the Director General of Police informed that the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network System (in short 'CCTNS') is the police portal and part of the Inter-operable Criminal Justice System (in short 'ICJS') is having some technical glitch. The National Informatics Centre (in short, 'NIC') is required to maintain that portal, and if the NIC removes the technical glitches, the system will start to work.

5. Therefore, this court vide order dated 27.11.2024, directed the Deputy Director General, NIC, New Delhi, as well as the Additional Director General (Technical Services), U.P. police to appear personally before this court through video conferencing. Apart from this, the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow was also directed to file a personal affidavit mentioning the steps taken by his department for the timely execution of the process of court.

6. In pursuance of the order dated 27.11.2024, Sri Prashant Kumar, Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow has filed his affidavit of compliance mentioning therein that the police department has taken several steps including the issuance of Circulars dated 09.12.2024, 19.01.2024, 10.10.2023, 16.08.2023, 18.01.2021, 04.02.2020, 20.10.2015 and 16.08.2015. It is further mentioned in the compliance affidavit that in Circulars dated 04.02.2020, 18.01.2021, 16.08.2023, 10.10.2023 and 09.12.2024; it is also mentioned that if any police officer is found negligent in the execution of the process of court, then it will attract disciplinary proceeding against him. From Circular dated 09.12.2024, which has been annexed at page no.15 of the compliance affidavit, it is clear that in pursuance of direction of this court, this Circular was issued with specific direction to all the police officials that they have to execute the process of court which includes summons, warrants and notices in priority basis as the Apex Court had already directed in the case of Suo-Motu Writ Peti